[ExI] Written for another list

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 4, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> Using a *different* preparative neutron source which ran on the uranium
> fuel cycle. Which is why they did it with U-235 first, because they simply
> did not have the production capacity to produce enough U-233 to kickstart
> the process,
>

You always need U-235 or some other neutron source to get the ball rolling
to produce some initial U-233 for ANY Thorium reactor, but after that it's
no longer necessary and its on its own.

> Again, the only interesting part of LFTR *concept* is in that it's a
> molten salt fast or slow breeder based
> on the thorium fuel cycle.


LFTR is different from all other fission reactors in 2 ways:

1) It uses Thorium as fuel.
2) It uses a liquid not a solid fuel.

> Because we know that uranium cycle fast breeders are impractical.
>

I too think Uranium breeders suck.


> > The *concept* has never been validated in all aspects of practical
> operation


True nobody has yet made a operational LFTR power plant yet, maybe because
after a very promising start with a reactor that produced millions of watts
of power nobody has spent a nickle on the idea in nearly 45 years.
Meanwhile tens of billions of dollars have been spent on fusion reactors
and even today they have yet to output one more watt of power than they
input. Something is badly out of balance.

> we have dozens of *proven* solutions which need to be rolled out on a
> very wide scale


Proven?  You can't be talking about wind power or tidal power or solar or
bio-fuel or geothermal or fusion or power satellites. So what are you
talking about?

> which unfortunately have no vocal supporters.


They have lots of very vocal supporters in Washington, they're called
"lobbyist". Nobody would dream of building a wind farm if the government
didn't bribe companies to do so because it's just not practical otherwise.

> Nor absolutely vital parts of R&Dthat absolutely, positively need to be
> done, now on an emergency schedule (because they were not done in the last
> 40 years
>

What are you talking about?? In the last 40 years billions of dollars of
R&D money have been spent on all the "green and renewable" energy sources I
mentioned above (except power satellites), and none of them amount to a
bucket of warm spit, meanwhile the amount spent on LFTR research is zero.


> This is the part that makes me stock up on popcorn.
>

Yes, we may live in interesting times because 7 billion large mammals
called human beings want to have a a good standard of living and they can't
do that from the energy produced by moonbeams and hummingbirds despite the
insistence of environmentalists. This is serious business because if they
can't live well a sizable portion of that 7 billion are going to get mad.
So you shouldn't automatically reject a possible solution just because it
has the word "nuclear" in it.

> You're a strange man, John.
>

I've been told that before.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120804/c58485b0/attachment.html>